Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I bought two of these because I needed new rubber in a hurry, they were cheap, and I wanted something "middle of the road" as I'm selling the bike soon and didn't want to scare buyers off with a set of huge knobby bags. (I had been running Tioga Extreme XC's)

So I got a pair of wire beaded 2.1 High Rollers from an LBS as they didn't seem to heavy, looked like they would work OK and they were cheap.

I knew they weren't going to be a high volume tyre, as I'd run a set of Hard Drive Duals a while back in 2.1 (bloody great, BTW) and these looked like the same size carcass. All the ramping of knobs, the reasonable weight and middle of the road size made them look like they would be pretty fast.


INSERT GAME SHOW "WRONG GUESS" SOUND HERE:


These things are for some reason slow as hell. So slow I thought my new rear disc pads were dragging - but no.

Low pressure, high pressure (they get pretty harsh too....) they are very uninspiring, and feel like the boar anchor Blue Dragons that came on the bike. I can't work out why this is.

They buzz a lot on hardpack, and on tar you sound like a TIE fighter coming down the road. What's more, the ramped edges really hurt the rear on climbs, with a slip when any decent torque is applied.

They want to push in gravelly turns, fall into ruts due to a lack of a square shoulder, and a just plain scary in mud.

If this is one of Maxxi's race tyre designs, it's no wonder Steve Larsen wanted to design his own. Compared to other racey treads I've run (Red Phoenix, Notos, Wildgripper) these things are real leg sappers. And to make it worse they are useless on climbs.

In short, they are slower than the big Extreme's they replaced, and can't hack half the gaff the big Tiogas could.


Anyone else tried these??
 

·
LA CHÈVRE
Joined
·
9,429 Posts
I have a pair of 2.35 UST and they were the slowest tires I ever tried in my over 15 years of mountain biking.... Mine were the 42A rubber so that only makes it worse. I didn't mind one on the front but I agree that as a rear tire, the ramped knobs makes the traction very poor. On the other hand, I like the cornering knobs, they really hooked when leaned into turns but I think the 2.35 have more meaty side knobs compared to the 2.1.
 

·
Bicyclist
Joined
·
2,849 Posts
I love the Hard Drive Duals

Sideknob said:
I knew they weren't going to be a high volume tyre, as I'd run a set of Hard Drive Duals a while back in 2.1 (bloody great, BTW) and these looked like the same size carcass. All the ramping of knobs, the reasonable weight and middle of the road size made them look like they would be pretty fast.
I bought a pair of those from Cambria for something like $6.95 apiece a year or two ago, put them in my "future tire" pile and finally installed them this spring. I and was blown away by how nice those tires are. I could live without the red center tread but otherwise they are a great rolling, lightweight, quiet tire with great traction and cornering abilities. They have that supple feel too that makes certain tires just feel good to ride. Incidentally, the Hard Drive Duals are quite a bit larger in volume than a pair of plain Hard Drives I have in the same size and are just a plain better tire overall.

Beyond that, I don't know what to make of your draggy High Rollers. :D
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Hmmm, I'd like to get more Hard Drive Duals but alas Maxxis no longer makes them and I can't find any anywhere. (my last set came from Greenfish) It seems Maxxis killed them off but left the High Non Rollers in.

I've noticed that specifically the High Rollers appear to really hate being torqued - and I'm a big gear torquey sort of rider.

Those ramped knobs on the rear also refuse to grip on wet rock.

I'm tempted to reverse the back tyre but I fear it will be so sluggish I'll start going backwards.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Sideknob said:
I'm tempted to reverse the back tyre but I fear it will be so sluggish I'll start going backwards.........
LOL... what are ramped knobs supposed to be good for??? all I see is complaints about them..
 

·
Death By Snoo Snoo
Joined
·
321 Posts
I have a set of 2.35 USTs and i like them alot compared to the 2.35 minions i had before. they corner very nicely, my only issue with them is that they kick up alot of debris when they are brand new.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
massmang said:
LOL... what are ramped knobs supposed to be good for??? all I see is complaints about them..
Supposed to make them roll faster, with the ramp hitting the ground first. Unfortunately the ramp also presents its slick surface to object you need grip on - and they tend to spin out suddenly. Found that out this morning with wet rocks.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
munkyspank said:
I have a set of 2.35 USTs and i like them alot compared to the 2.35 minions i had before. they corner very nicely, my only issue with them is that they kick up alot of debris when they are brand new.
I noticed that with mine too - a constant stream of grit coming off the front tyre. It doesn't affect the ride but it's kind of hypnotising to watch......:skep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Sideknob said:
Supposed to make them roll faster, with the ramp hitting the ground first. Unfortunately the ramp also presents its slick surface to object you need grip on - and they tend to spin out suddenly. Found that out this morning with wet rocks.
I guess they are good if you don't have to go over any slick surfaces... although not too many places I encounter don't have them here in the north east.

thanks for solving that mystery for me...
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Well, I put theses back on as I was sick of the Spiders I was running on my new bike. This time I have fitted them with a set of Flyweight tubes.

Big difference in how they roll now. They now feel a lot better, not sluggish like they were when they had ordinary tubes in them.

Must have something to do with making them a bit more supple, and of course there is a weight reduction too.

They now spin along more freely, and climb pretty well. Being of low volume however, I find I need to keep a real close eye on tyre pressure, as the Flyweights will pinch flat over the slightest bottoming out. It's a pity Maxxis didn't see fit to use a higher volume, lightweight casing with these.

I think I'll leave them on for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
Sideknob said:
Well, I put theses back on as I was sick of the Spiders I was running on my new bike. This time I have fitted them with a set of Flyweight tubes.

Big difference in how they roll now. They now feel a lot better, not sluggish like they were when they had ordinary tubes in them.

Must have something to do with making them a bit more supple, and of course there is a weight reduction too.

They now spin along more freely, and climb pretty well. Being of low volume however, I find I need to keep a real close eye on tyre pressure, as the Flyweights will pinch flat over the slightest bottoming out. It's a pity Maxxis didn't see fit to use a higher volume, lightweight casing with these.

I think I'll leave them on for a while.
What didn't you like about the Spiders?
 

·
never ender
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
Funny, I have a 2.35 60a clincher on the back and it rolls pretty fast, or at least faster than others I've tried. In on dusty/wet/otherwise loose trails it feels like the ramped leading edge allows the center knobs to dig in further before grabbing. It also hangs on pretty well on the various kinds of crappy sedimentary rock we have out here, and of course the cornering and braking bite are awesome.
Of course, the tall knobs probably mean that the HR is pretty slow on hardpack...wouldn't really know, since I haven't seen hardpack in a while. :thumbsup: But you have to remember that the 2.1 and 2.35 High Rollers are downsized DH/FR tires; they weren't really designed with rolling or climbing in mind. I'd also imagine that the 2.1 version especially has problems; one of the strengths of the bigger High Rollers is that the knobs are pretty fat relative to the casing, and on a smaller tire that benefit is probably diminished.
Anyway, the High Roller obviously has its weaknesses, but it's good enough to be my benchmark for a rear tire. It's made the difference between sticking to the trail and flying headfirst into the jungle on more than one occasion.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
grawbass said:
What didn't you like about the Spiders?
They didn't have a square profile, which I prefer - the cornering knobs are too far down the side of the tread for my liking. It was like you had to have the bike leaned over at 90 degrees for the edge to actually dig in and do something. They also had a tendency to "tuck" occasionally, and didn't really work that well in the gravelly stuff around here. Nice volume, rolled well and respectable weight though. They weren't terrible tyres, but I've had better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,470 Posts
fat_weasel said:
But you have to remember that the 2.1 and 2.35 High Rollers are downsized DH/FR tires; they weren't really designed with rolling or climbing in mind.
Bingo :thumbsup:

I'm running a high-roller 2.35 LUST as a rear tire currently and am very happy with it. The tread design is virtually identical to the Michellin comp 16 DH or the Hutchinson Octopus- I also own these tires in similar widths and the high roller has the least rolling resistance of these three.

As a rear tire for loose, loamy or muddy conditions the high roller rocks imho... Probably overkill for fast XC on more hardpack trails.

PS, I also tried the Hutchinson Spider 2.3 and hated it- 4 flats on the first ride (Mt.Eldin, flagstaff). The casing is just way too thin for rocky terrain.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
FM said:
PS, I also tried the Hutchinson Spider 2.3 and hated it- 4 flats on the first ride (Mt.Eldin, flagstaff). The casing is just way too thin for rocky terrain.
Yeah, they do have a very supple casing and papery sidewalls - but those attributes cab be pluses on an XC hardtail, as it makes them roll fast and gives a nice ride.

The 2.1 XC High Rollers are a far lighter casing than those thick 2.35 ones. I looked at some of those at the LBS, just out of interest - they seemed pretty bulletproof.
 

·
Its got what plants crave
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
I ride the 2.35 high roller UST's front and rear. Pretty slow tire when aired down, and climbing isn't that great, but on the downhills I love them.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Jim311 said:
I ride the 2.35 high roller UST's front and rear. Pretty slow tire when aired down, and climbing isn't that great, but on the downhills I love them.
They don't seem to be a very big casing for a 2.35 either.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
mrpercussive said:
i've ridden them and they have not let me down before... they're grippy and i love that... but hey, with grip comes rolling resistance... I'd rather have grip though
Not always.

I had a pair of Maxxis's discontinued Hard Drive Duals - sort of like a Hot S tread pattern, on a smallish 2.1 size.

They rolled nice and gripped like poop to a sock.

Tioga's little Red Phoenix also zings along but gave me good grip on the rear.

The same could not be said for the 2.1 Blue Dragon - a slow pedaler, with no climbing traction to speak of in loose conditions - and gave me less traction than the little Red Phoenix.

I think the casing has a lot to do with it - if it can conform to what it hits, it will tend to grip a bit better, and meet less resistance as it rolls over the trail surface.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top